Slashdot Mirror
Movie Playback From 1TB Holographic Disc
qorkfiend writes "Optware Corp. has announced successful playback of digital movies on a new holographic recording disc with a reflective layer. Known as the Collinear Holographic Data Storage System, the disc has a one terabyte storage capacity and one gigabyte transfer speed. The disc size is 12cm, comparable to that of a DVD and a CD."
The article states 1GB per second...
Optware is using a polymer developed by Aprilis.
You can find more technical details here: Technical Publications
The founder of Optware used to work at Sony, and other technical guys working for them were involved with Blu-Ray. I guess they got tired of working by the hour. Heh. Finally, here's an EETime Article that goes into more detail about the Optware product.
Personally, I just want to know when I can buy a burner.
I just measured one. 12 cm.
ObSheesh: Sheesh!
--- Ban humanity.
Here's a tutorial on Holographic storage: http://www.inphase-technologies.com/technology/
since when are there 2.4 cm to an inch?
try 5.0in x 2.54 cm/in = 12.7cm
It's pretty safe to assume they mean per second. A CD drive has a baseline speed of 150 kb/s. That means that a 48 speed drive has a transfer rate of 7,200 kb/s. Now if we increase the data density to 1 terrabyte, we find that we are now capable of reading 11 gigabytes at the same RPM. Given the greater complexity of this technology, they've probably reduced the RPMs to something more along the lines of an 8 speed drive. This would reduce the data transfer rate, but impose fewer stresses on the media.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It IS the same size disc. Read the article.
http://www.physorg.com/preview785.html
Did you know that you would have to take 1,000,000 pictures a day to fill up a 100 terabyte disk in one lifetime?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
As always: trry google. 5 inch = 12.7 centimeters. But I just measured one and a cd is actuallually 12 centimeters = 4.72440945 inch (at least according to the almighty google). As the compact disc is licensed by philips, 12 cm would be a logical size (more logical then 5 inch anyway)
12cm == 5 inches
WTF? This is supposed to be a geek site yet we get this? The correct statement is 1 inch == 2.54 cm (this is by definition). Another correct statement would be 5 inches = 12.7 cm, or 12 cm is approximately 4.72 inches, but you sure as heck can't say "twelve centimeters is defined as 5 inches" which is how your post would read. Come on people, let's at least try and stay close to accurate!
I've already heard plenty of complaints about a scratch destroying more info on a DVD than a CD due to density.
According to this site that's hooey.
"A common misperception is that a scratch will be worse on a DVD than on a CD because of higher storage density and because video is heavily compressed. DVD data density is physically four times that of CD-ROM, so it's true that a scratch will affect more data. But DVD error correction is at least ten times better than CD-ROM error correction and more than makes up for the density increase."
And that came from Disney, so you can trust it 110%!
Wrongo! The Planck distance is the smallest measure that has any meaning.
A quantam leap is an instantaneous leap, which is presumably the meaning used by marketers.
How do you arrive at 11Gb/s? Looks like (7.2Mb/s / 0.64 Gb * 1Tb) - That would be wrong. The areal density increases about 1560-fold (assuming 640Mb/CD), but the linear density increases only by the square root of this. The amount of data that passes by the reading laser along the track would be just 40 times larger for the holographic media compared to a CD at constant RPM, which would result in 'only' 288Mb/s. With 1Gb/s, they'd still be a factor of 4 away, but that's still closer than your estimate.
Look at the picture and tell me if the HVD and CD/DVD are the same size. Could just be an illusion, but the HVD looks bigger to me...
;)
Hmm, the article states: "The disc diameter of 12 centimeters is equivalent to those of CD and DVD."
While Wikipedia says:
"CDs are available in a range of sizes but the most commonly available is 120mm (about 5 inches) in diameter. A 120mm disc can store about 74 minutes of music or about 650 megabytes of data."
So I would guess "equivalent" in this case really means "==", and that the different sizes on the picture are just an optical illusion...
Actually the only responsibility a company has, other than obeying the law, is to generate profit for its shareholders.
If it does something out of the goodness of its heart that costs its ahreholders money, then its been negligent.
Now ethical trading can be a way to make money as a unique selling point, but not purely because it's nice.
I'm not saying this is a *good* thing, but it is, unfortunately, the truth.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You are wrong.
It used to be
1 inch = 2.5004 cm or something, but they changed it to
1 inch = 2.54 cm
The meter used to be defined in terms of the Earth's diameter, but they changed that so it is the distance light travels in a somethingth of a second. A second is defined in terms of the decay of ceasium.
The only unit that is arbitrary is The One True Kilogram which resides in France.
As far as I know.
You're assuming that the number of tracks increases at the same rate the linear density increases. That might be a reasonable assumption for DVDs vs. CDs, which are made denser by scaling everything down (which you can do because the light is a smaller wavelength and can resolve smaller features on the disc), but not so much for this format.
This format uses a red laser for tracking, so the tracks can't really be packed closer together than on a DVD; and anyway the big boost in data density comes from the holographic technology, which packs more data per linear unit, but does not pack it in a narrower space.
Holographic storage is pretty cool, but pretty tricky.
There's already several technologies close to coming out for 2D storage on to a compact disk sized product. These have a current density of like 1 gb/cm^2 I think and transfer speeds in the hundreds of mb/s to gigabytes. That's what this article is about. A few companies are already looking at it and they're trying to reformulate to support rewritable media better.
The transfer speed is awesome because unlike a CD where data is read off bit by bit, data is transferred to and read from the holographic disks in 1024x1024 squares (1 megabit). The size of the spatial light modulator is 1024x1024 cells. So one single read action pulls off a megabit of data. That's hot shit IMO.
The one that gets me really interested is 3d volumetric storage which would be like storing data in a crystal. They talk about densities of a terrabyte per cubic cm, with transfer rates of a terrabyte per second. This I want to see. Unfortunately I forget the material they're using (I did a presentation on it a while ago) but once you "read" from it the light rearranges the structure and data is lost. So right now they're one time write and one time read devices. Not do good for a hard drive.
Presently here, but not there.
For the clueless ones who modded the parent "overrated," the parent is quoting Agent K from Men in Black.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Been that way since early 1983.
Chip H.
A publicly held company has an obligation to its shareholders. But that doesn't really matter unless a majority share is held by the public and not by individuals
Not to beat a dead horse, but WHY OH WHY do people believe this? A corporation is a corporation is a corporation, whether it's public or private. A corporation that has shareholders ALWAYS has a duty to its shareholders (or rather, the management has certain fiduciary duties towards the shareholders). It does not matter whether a corporation is public or private when it comes to this basic duty. Public companies are more susceptible to getting SUED by shareholders, in part because they have to disclose so much information, but that doesn't change the nature of the obligations toward shareholders.
That's GigaBIT (Gb), not Gigabyte (GB) according to the EETimes article.
No, the company actually spells it out as "one gigabyte per second."
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.